In this bail application, the applicant sought an additional week to deposit a 25% fine bond and furnish a personal bond. The court dismissed the application, holding no reason exists to modify the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45843 of 2019
Applicant :- Balakash Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 15.112019, by which the applicant has been directed to deposit 25% of the fine within one month and further, to furnish a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- and two reliable sureties for being released on bail to the satisfaction of the court below.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is ready to deposit the fine amount as fixed by the court below, however, one further week's time be granted to comply the order dated 15.11.2019.
The applicant, even after being released on bail with certain conditions, had not yet fulfilled the same and prays that one further week's time be granted to him to deposit the fine amount as ordered by the court below. There is absolutely no reason to make any modification in the impugned order, which is just, proper and legal.
Present application is wholly misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.12.2019 Nadim
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to an additional week to deposit the fine amount fixed by the lower court.
Balakash Chaudhary
State of U.P.
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
